From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodruff v. Chapin

Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, May Term, 1910
Jun 14, 1910
76 A. 294 (Conn. 1910)

Opinion

Chapter 152 of the Public Acts of 1909 provides that the decision of a judge of the Superior Court as to the validity of a liquor-license election in a town shall be "conclusive." Held that in view of the evident purpose of the legislature to have this class of controversies speedily decided and ended, the word "conclusive" as used in the Act meant "final," and thus precluded any appeal to this court.

Argued May 3d 1910

Decided June 14th, 1910.

APPEAL by the defendant from a decision of the Hon. George W. Wheeler, a judge of the Superior Court, holding null and void a liquor license vote cast by the voters of the town of New Hartford at its annual town meeting in October, 1909. Appeal to this court dismissed.

William F. Henney and Frank B. Munn, for the appellant (defendant).

Arthur L. Shipman and Wilbur G. Manchester, for the appellee (plaintiff).


The principal question raised upon this appeal is as to the sufficiency of the warning and notice of the annual town meeting, at which the vote in question was taken. It appears that a warning and notice were attempted to be given in compliance with the statute ( § 1795), but that the part of the statute requiring the publication of the warning in a newspaper was not complied with. The warning and notice were published in a newspaper four days before the meeting, instead of five, as required by the statute. The trial judge held that this was fatal to the license vote, and declared it void.

The appellants come here claiming error in this, but the appeal, we think, should be disposed of in another way. The appellant seems to have assumed that an appeal in this matter was entirely permissible. This is a wrong assumption. Chapter 152 of the Public Acts of 1909 (p. 1079), under the provisions of which this petition was brought, provides that "the judge shall . . . hear and determine such petition, and his decision thereon shall be conclusive." This forbids, and is intended to forbid, appeals. Evidently the legislature desired to bring about a speedy and final determination in this particular class of controversies; and so a competent tribunal is named, and the decision of that tribunal is in terms made "conclusive," and that means final, as the term is used in this Act; otherwise there would be no occasion to use it.


Summaries of

Woodruff v. Chapin

Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, May Term, 1910
Jun 14, 1910
76 A. 294 (Conn. 1910)
Case details for

Woodruff v. Chapin

Case Details

Full title:WALTER C. WOODRUFF vs . FRANK M. CHAPIN, FIRST SELECTMAN

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, May Term, 1910

Date published: Jun 14, 1910

Citations

76 A. 294 (Conn. 1910)
76 A. 294

Citing Cases

Walton v. Hillier

There is no doubt of the competency of the Essex County Circuit Court on petition and motion to order the…

Walton v. Hillier

There is no doubt of the competency of the Essex County Circuit Court on petition and motion to order the…